Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [DebunkCreation] Lenny's 90 references of observed speciations

Expand Messages
  • Jim Taylor
    ... The Bible. According to the Bible, there were only eight humans on the Ark: Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their sons wives. With maximum genome
    Message 1 of 526 , Oct 1, 2002
      > Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 22:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
      > From: Mike Sims <mikesims10670@...>
      > Subject: Re: Lenny's 90 references of observed speciations
      >
      >
      > --- Jim Taylor <vizenos@...> wrote:
      >
      > > BTW, have you any thoughts as to how we could have
      > > gotten from a maximum of 16 alleles to more than
      > > 400 alleles in the short period of time since the
      > > flood?
      >
      > I need more information on this before I can form my
      > own hypothesis. Who says there were only 16 at the
      > time of the flood?

      The Bible.

      According to the Bible, there were only eight humans
      on the Ark: Noah, his wife, their three sons, and
      their sons' wives. With maximum genome variation
      in that group, and taking recessives into consideration,
      there could not possibly have been more than 16 different
      sets of alleles represented on the Ark. Now, by Lenny's
      latest posted information, we have 400+. To account
      for that, you'd have to postulate more evolution, over
      less time, than any evolutionary biologist would accept.

      Jim


      =====
      "There would be no need for sermons, if our lives were shining; there
      would be no need for words, if we bore witness with our deeds. There
      would be no pagans, if we were true Christians."--St. John Chrysostom

      "It is as useless to argue with those that have renounced the use and authority of reason as to argue with the dead." -- Thomas Paine

      __________________________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
      http://sbc.yahoo.com
    • Ray T. Perreault
      Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:50:47 -0000 From: Michael E. Suttkus, II Subject: Re: vitamin C and Msg#31642 ... What does it matter why they
      Message 526 of 526 , Dec 6, 2003
        Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:50:47 -0000
        From: "Michael E. Suttkus, II" <suttkus@...>
        Subject: Re: vitamin C and Msg#31642

        --- In DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com, "deismplus"
        <waterdrinker@h...> wrote:
        > > It is known, and has been known for a long
        > > time, that primates do not synthesize vitamin C.
        > > And that guinea pigs don't either.
        > > Here's my prediction: if we check it out at molecular
        > > level, we'll find that the vitamin C genes
        > > of both humans and chimps have the SAME mutation
        > > that causes it not to function, while in guinea
        > > pigs, it is some OTHER mutation that causes the failure.
        > [...]
        > This seems to be an argument against the
        > hypothesis that human beings were specially
        > created. However, what would motivate
        > anyone to consider that hypothesis?

        What does it matter why they would consider it? It's a hypothesis,
        consider it.

        > I can only think of two possibilities:
        > (a) Some people have an emotional resistance
        > to the idea that human beings and chimps have
        > common ancestors.
        > (b) The doctrines of some religions include
        > the claim that human beings were specially
        > created.
        >
        > Suppose we start with the genetic code of a
        > human being and trace backwards, imagining
        > the genetic codes of ancestors.
        > (1) We start with a human being, an organism
        > whose body chemistry cannot make vitamin C.
        > (2) As we trace backwards, we arrive at an
        > organism whose body chemistry could make vitamin C.
        > (3) However, if we continue to trace backwards,
        > we arrive at an organism whose body chemistry
        > could NOT make vitamin C.
        >
        > The only alternative to (3) is:
        > A complex organism capable of making vitamin C
        > arose directly from nonliving matter.
        > Either it arose spontaneously or it arose under
        > the control of a directing intelligence.
        >
        > Now, if we assume that (3) is true, then the following
        > questions arise:
        >
        > (1) How do we know that those genes that do
        > not quite allow our bodies to make vitamin C
        > aren't good for something?

        If I get up tomorrow and find a car wrapped around the tree in my
        front yard, which is the logical response:

        1. That's a car that has been smashed into a tree and no longer
        works.

        2. That looks like a smashed car, but it might have been built that
        way and serve some other purpose.

        We have a defective vitamin C gene. Worse, we have exactly the same
        defective vitamin C gene that chimps have. Trying to pretend that it
        might be something else is silly.

        \The IDiot will solemnly inform you that chimps and humans are separately
        and similarly designed with the defective gene in both.

        But if you don't like the vitamin C gene, let's move to the growth
        regulator gene that has a transposon stuck in it. Not only can we
        identify it's original purpose, but we can tell you what happened to
        change it and what would happen were it somehow reactivated. This
        isn't rocket science.

        \It must be, IDiots can't figure it out.

        > (2) If we begin with our ancestors whose bodies
        > could make vitamin C and we trace backwards to an
        > ancestor of those ancestors--an ancestor whose body
        > could NOT make vitamin C--how do we know that
        > the defect that prevented vitamin C from being
        > made was not exactly the same defect that we now have?

        That acestor wouldn't have a non-functional gene just waiting for one
        change to turn it into a vitamin C gene. Off happens fast, but
        development works in stages.


        \Redevelopment of a disabled gene can take a highly roundabout route.
        Take the gastrointestinal torsion of the Gastropoda. Apparently a point
        mutation caused one muscle to fail, twisting the intestinal tract to
        empty just above the head. The Opisthobranchia have reverted to the
        normal molluscan condition, but through a complicated process.

        Ray

        ________________________________________________________________
        The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
        Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
        Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.